Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-readOnly, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that 'items' is a native string array and shows a concrete payload, but says nothing about what is returned, whether insertion is atomic, or how placement interacts with later chaining.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then variant semantics, then a compact example. Nothing is wasted, though the inline example slightly duplicates what the schema type already conveys.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, variant semantics, and payload shape, while placement semantics (after/parentId/position) are fully handled by schema descriptions. The main omission is any hint of the return value (e.g., the new node id), which an agent may need for follow-up inserts.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so 3 is the baseline, and the description actually adds real value: the schema only says variant is 'List type', while the description explains ordered=numbered vs unordered=bullets, and it clarifies that items is a native array rather than an encoded string. The worked example makes the required combination unambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Insert a list element') that is immediately distinguishable from the many sibling insert tools (paragraph, table, question types). It does not, however, explicitly name which sibling to prefer or contrast with, so it stops short of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The conditional guidance given ('ordered' for numbered, 'unordered' for bullets) is about parameter choice, not about when to choose this tool over editor_insertParagraph, editor_insertTable, or other insert siblings. Usage is implied by the name and example rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.